Decapitation strikes in WW2?

[Corinthian]

Were there any decapitation strikes made in WW2 by either party? I don't recall any side planning or conducting a strike at Westminster or SHAEF HQ, nor Allied bombers targeting the Reichstag or Hitler's mountain retreat in Austria.

 

Watching "A Bridge Too Far", it showed a scene where the German general staff was headquartered in a big mansion, complete with swastika banners and such. Why was such buildings not bombed in the hopes of killing a general and his staff?

 

Any examples in the PTO as well?

[DougRichards]

Were there any decapitation strikes made in WW2 by either party? I don't recall any side planning or conducting a strike at Westminster or SHAEF HQ, nor Allied bombers targeting the Reichstag or Hitler's mountain retreat in Austria.

 

Watching "A Bridge Too Far", it showed a scene where the German general staff was headquartered in a big mansion, complete with swastika banners and such. Why was such buildings not bombed in the hopes of killing a general and his staff?

 

Any examples in the PTO as well?

 

Yamamoto

[DougRichards]

You mean apart from the fictional ones?

 

"I was Monty's Double" or the more historically accurate version from Professors Sellers, Milligan and Secombe: "I was Monty's Treble"

 

which includes the classic lines:

 

Peter (German): Klin, Prin. Montgomery is always flying backwards and forwards between England.

Harry (German): They have planes that fly backwards?

 

and

 

"The Eagle Has Landed"

 

I think the problem with assassination of leaders is that the idea of "King as Cause" in terms of winning wars had passed around the time of Hastings. The killing of any particular leader would not necessarily result in a lessening of hostilities: in the example of Adolf Hitler, if the allies had managed to kill him it is likely that a more capable leader, if less inspiring, would have been able to take over the conduct of the war.

 

The death of FDR in 1945 did not slow down the USA at all.

[Marek Tucan]

Kinda decapitation strikes were performed, where they were deemed worthy - Yamamoto, Heydrich spring to mind, as well as that aerial assault on Panzer Korps HQ in Normandy for example.

[Corinthian]

Doug: Yup, factual ones. I forgot about the ambush on Yamamoto's flight.

 

Tuccy: Heydrich? Panzer Korps HQ in Normandy? I thought Heydrich was just an assassination attempt by resistance fighters (or am I confusing him for someone else?).

[BansheeOne]

The SAS tried to off Rommel.

[Marek Tucan]

Panzer Korps HQ in Normandy?

 

My bad, wasn't Panzer Korps but Panzergruppe West under von Schweppenburg. The HQ was based in La Caine and its position was discovered by Allied SIGINT, on June 10, 1944 it was attacked by 40 Typhoons and 60 Mitchells, Typhoons equipped with rockets and Mitchells with 500 lb bombs. Though La Caine Chateau wasn't too damaged, most of HQ's vehicles and comm equipment was destroyed, von Schweppenburg himself was injured and 18 staff memebers were killed. Panzergruppe West HQ was thus rendered unoperational, its remains were withdhrawn and command of armor units came under I SS Panzer Korps.

 

I thought Heydrich was just an assassination attempt by resistance fighters (or am I confusing him for someone else?).

 

Nope, Operation Anthropoid was planned by SOE and Czechoslovakian Exile government, with specific target in mind. It was performed by dessant group Anthropoid (two-man) with help from members of another dessant group, Silver A, whose primary mission went FUBAR. They were assisted by local resistance, but local groups were rather opposed to the idea of taking out Heydrich, as he was anyway due to leave and they feared retribution.

[Exel]

I think the problem with assassination of leaders is that the idea of "King as Cause" in terms of winning wars had passed around the time of Hastings. The killing of any particular leader would not necessarily result in a lessening of hostilities: in the example of Adolf Hitler, if the allies had managed to kill him it is likely that a more capable leader, if less inspiring, would have been able to take over the conduct of the war.

 

The death of FDR in 1945 did not slow down the USA at all.

 

Political leaders who would just be replaced by new ones may not be the worth the while, either for being ineffective or for even making matters worse by giving the enemy a martyr. Killing a popular leader, a national icon, such as any of the big four - Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler - would have been a huge propaganda victory for the victim's side while possibly producing no desirable effects whatsoever. Just killing Hitler, for instance, without an immediate and successful coup might have only made the Nazi party stronger. The generals might have pulled it off, but I don't see how a foreign intelligence service could have - or else they would have.

 

Decapitating the military command by offing key figures on the other hand is a different matter entirely. Most generals, let alone their faceless staffs, don't have the status of a popular icon like Monty or Rommel might have had. Exceptionally capable leaders also don't grow on trees, or they wouldn't be exceptional. But more importantly the short term effect of just disrupting the chain of command might be decisive for the success or failure of some crucial operation. Patton might be replaced by another, perhaps even more capable general, but having the 3rd Army lose its commander at a critical moment might be crucial for the outcome of any battle or campaign. But of course general officers in the field are a lot harder targets to get than the public leaders of a country. I'm sure no side would have hesitated in taking out the enemy's CO or HQ if they had the chance. But this wasn't the time when you had satellites in orbit reading license plates or UAVs giving real-time close-in video footage to your strike package 300 miles offshore. I'm sure they tried more often than they succeeded.

Edited January 1, 2008 by Exel

[Gabe]

I think the problem with assassination of leaders is that the idea of "King as Cause" in terms of winning wars had passed around the time of Hastings. The killing of any particular leader would not necessarily result in a lessening of hostilities: in the example of Adolf Hitler, if the allies had managed to kill him it is likely that a more capable leader, if less inspiring, would have been able to take over the conduct of the war.

 

The death of FDR in 1945 did not slow down the USA at all.

 

What about Hirohito? The entire Japanese term of surrender was hinged on his well being. Get rid of him and they may no longer have the motivation to keep fighting.

 

There were allied clandestine activity in Germany, were there any operations in Japan at all?

Edited January 1, 2008 by Gabe

[nitflegal]

Amusing that I just watched the Dirty Dozen this morning. . .

 

Matt

[John Dudek]

Amusing that I just watched the Dirty Dozen this morning. . .

 

Matt

 

I read that the railroad car that the French Surrender was signed-in at Compiegne in 1940 was scheduled for bombing by the RAF after it arrived and was sitting on a siding in Berlin, hoping to catch some of the Nazi Hierarchy pontificating from it. None of Hitler's boys showed up, although the railroad car itself was blown to atoms by some fine, low-level bombing by the RAF.

[Mikel2]

None of Hitler's boys showed up, although the railroad car itself was blown to atoms by some fine, low-level bombing by the RAF.

 

Are you sure they weren´t trying to bomb a bridge 20 miles away?

[Sardaukar]

The SAS tried to off Rommel.

 

I got interesting book by Michael Asher (himself ex-SAS) "Get Rommel" which is about that, as Xmas gift from wife. But fledling SAS role in that op was mostly attacking airfields by parties parachuted in, didnt quite work as planned. They learned lot of lessons from that one and worked with LRDG after it.

[Sardaukar]

Just killing Hitler, for instance, without an immediate and successful coup might have only made the Nazi party stronger.

 

I have hard time believing that...considering the people next in succession... Hess, Goering etc. It'd have had profound effect.

[Exel]

I have hard time believing that...considering the people next in succession... Hess, Goering etc. It'd have had profound effect.

 

Sure it would have a profound effect. But for the good or worse? Would the effects in the end be at all desirable for the Allies? It could work out fine, but then it could go horribly, horribly wrong. I don't think that offing Hitler would have ousted the Nazis from power unless the act was followed by an internal coup. Hitler was the Nazi party leader, but it was the party that had consolidated the power to him so most probably the Nazis would be able to stay in power. Granted it might have made the war end sooner in 1945 if Hitler hadn't been there to insist fighting to the last man, but then he certainly wasn't the only lunatic in the top Nazi clique.

[swerve]

Sure it would have a profound effect. But for the good or worse? Would the effects in the end be at all desirable for the Allies? It could work out fine, but then it could go horribly, horribly wrong. I don't think that offing Hitler would have ousted the Nazis from power unless the act was followed by an internal coup. Hitler was the Nazi party leader, but it was the party that had consolidated the power to him so most probably the Nazis would be able to stay in power. Granted it might have made the war end sooner in 1945 if Hitler hadn't been there to insist fighting to the last man, but then he certainly wasn't the only lunatic in the top Nazi clique.

 

It may seem hard to believe, but quite a few army officers were inhibited from joining the various attempts to overthrow Hitler by the personal oath of loyalty they all had to swear. Removing him would have removed that obstacle, & it'd have been a free-for-all for a while. Top Nazis would have fought each other: Hitler held them together, & he'd deliberately cultivated enmity between them, to ensure none could threaten him. The Wehrmacht might have joined in on its own account, whether united or split into factions. Whoever came out on top would not have had the status of Hitler, & his unquestioned position. It would have been much, much easier for groups within the Wehrmacht, or even within the Nazi party, to have tried to make deals with the Allies.

[swerve]

What about Hirohito? The entire Japanese term of surrender was hinged on his well being. Get rid of him and they may no longer have the motivation to keep fighting. ...

 

Don't confuse the position with the person. Monarchies usually - deliberately - have a spare or two ready to take over.

 

"The Emperor is dead." (Former Crown Prince steps forward). "Long live the Emperor!" (All salute the new Emperor).

[Sardaukar]

Sure it would have a profound effect. But for the good or worse? Would the effects in the end be at all desirable for the Allies? It could work out fine, but then it could go horribly, horribly wrong. I don't think that offing Hitler would have ousted the Nazis from power unless the act was followed by an internal coup. Hitler was the Nazi party leader, but it was the party that had consolidated the power to him so most probably the Nazis would be able to stay in power. Granted it might have made the war end sooner in 1945 if Hitler hadn't been there to insist fighting to the last man, but then he certainly wasn't the only lunatic in the top Nazi clique.

 

Also what swerve said...Hitler was about only thing keeping NSDAP etc. together. They were the most inefficient, petty-minded incompetents ever keeping power so long (IMHO). Their private ambitions and nasty personal clashes were second to none.

 

They were also deliberately structured so no-one could challenge A. Hitler, keeping busy competing each other in their petty feuds. Göring vs. Bormann. vs. Himmler vs...list is very long.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Sardaukar

[Exel]

They were also deliberately structured so no-one could challenge A. Hitler, keeping busy competing each other in their petty feuds. Göring vs. Bormann. vs. Himmler vs...list is very long.

 

Even so if the generals wouldn't step in, the internal party power struggle could be over very quickly. Whoever came out on top could then use Hitler's martyrdom to strengthen his position. If this happened when the Third Reich was still apparently strong in the war the Wehrmacht might well be willing to keep on fighting under the new leadership. Best case scenario they'd seek peace with the allies to concentrate on defeating the Soviets who would still be seen as an existential threat; worst case scenario the new leadership would launch a retaliatory attack on London with chemical weapons...

[Marek Tucan]

worst case scenario the new leadership would launch a retaliatory attack on London with chemical weapons...

 

That being however worst case for Germany primarily...

[Gabe]

Don't confuse the position with the person. Monarchies usually - deliberately - have a spare or two ready to take over.

 

"The Emperor is dead." (Former Crown Prince steps forward). "Long live the Emperor!" (All salute the new Emperor).

 

The current Japanese emperor was 10 or 11 years old in 1945. I think a big part of Japanese fear was that their enemies would hang the emperor for war crimes. If Hirohito were dead and replaced by someone not involved with Japanese militarism, things could be different.

Edited January 2, 2008 by Gabe

[John T]

Were there any decapitation strikes made in WW2 by either party? I don't recall any side planning or conducting a strike at Westminster or SHAEF HQ, nor Allied bombers targeting the Reichstag or Hitler's mountain retreat in Austria.

 

I think you can say the surgical strikes against Gestapo HQ's late in the war was kind of decapitation, aming at destroying archives and personel and to release captured Resistance fighters.

Victoria Palatset in Oslo, Shellhuset in Denmark and something similar i Brussels (seen the statue, but fails to remember the name)

 

Cheers

/John T

[Colin]

I think you can say the surgical strikes against Gestapo HQ's late in the war was kind of decapitation, aming at destroying archives and personel and to release captured Resistance fighters.

Victoria Palatset in Oslo, Shellhuset in Denmark and something similar i Brussels (seen the statue, but fails to remember the name)

 

Cheers

/John T

 

Dang beat me to it. Even those the resistance fighter died in the building, the effect on the civil population must been one of quiet celebration of seeing those murdering bastards offed. I suspect the Gestapo were always looking over their shoulder after that one. To bad the Allies didn’t have something like JDAMs at the time.

 

I wonder if the technology existed in a small enough state to have a 1,000lb hone in on a radio signal?

 

Have an agent plant a transmitter that had a clock timer that it would start broadcasting an hour or two before the attack, the plane flies in beams onto the signal, when the bomb has it and within range, release and fly away.

[swerve]

The current Japanese emperor was 10 or 11 years old in 1945.

 

But since he was not expected to run anything, that didn't matter.

 

I think a big part of Japanese fear was that their enemies would hang the emperor for war crimes. If Hirohito were dead and replaced by someone not involved with Japanese militarism, things could be different.

 

"Decapitation" of Japan by killing the emperor would almost certainly strengthen resistance, & would make no difference to the functioning of government. Hirohito did not make policy, & had no executive role. His acquiescence was useful to the militarists, but they didn't need his support, only that he did not oppose them. A entirely passive (like most in the last 800 years) or child emperor would have served their purposes perfectly well.

[Olof Larsson]

Dang beat me to it. Even those the resistance fighter died in the building, the effect on the civil population must been one of quiet celebration of seeing those murdering bastards offed. I suspect the Gestapo were always looking over their shoulder after that one. To bad the Allies didn’t have something like JDAMs at the time.

 

I wonder if the technology existed in a small enough state to have a 1,000lb hone in on a radio signal?

 

No, but most of the US guided bomb projects during the war was based on 1000lb bombs.

From memory, radioguided (side-ways only), radioguided (range and side-ways), IR-guided,

radarguided (radar on the bomb, with image transmitted to the carrier aircraft, where the bombardier steered the bomb)

TV-guided (TV-camera on the bomb, with image transmitted to the carrier aircraft, where the bombardier steered the bomb)

and light guidence (intended to go after AA searchlights I guess).

 

The US also used the radar-guided (active radar) glidebomb Bat, built around a 1000lb bomb.

 

 

Besides the Bat, only the side-ways only radio-guided bombs came to use during the war.